Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

GOLD COAST (INDEPENDENCE)

11.5 a.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): With permission, Sir, I wish to make a statement about certain developments in the Gold Coast.
As the House knows, the present Gold Coast Constitution marked the last stage before the assumption by the Gold Coast of full responsibility for its own affairs. The grant of such responsibility is a matter for the United Kingdom Government and Parliament and it has always been the wish of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom that the Gold Coast should achieve its independence within the Commonwealth.
Since the present Constitution was introduced there has arisen a dispute within the Gold Coast about the form of Constitution which that country should have when it achieves independence within the Commonwealth. Efforts have been made to bring about a reconciliation between the major parties, but they have so far met with no success.
I have been in close touch with the Prime Minister of the Gold Coast on these matters. It is the considered view of his Government that the time has now come for the Gold Coast to assume full responsibility within the Commonwealth for its own affairs. I have made my view clear to him that because of the failure to resolve the constitutional dispute we can only achieve our common aim of the early independence of that country within the Commonwealth in one way and in one way alone; that is, to demonstrate to the world that the peoples of the Gold Coast have had a full and free opportunity to consider their Constitution and to express their views on it in a general election.
I have told Dr. Nkrumah that if a General Election is held Her Majesty's Government will be ready to accept a motion calling for independence within the Commonwealth passed by a reasonable majority in a newly elected Legislature and then to declare a firm date for this purpose.
Full membership of the Commonwealth is, of course, a different question and is a matter for consultation between all existing members of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Creech Jones: I should like to thank the Secretary of State for this very important announcement. I think all hon. Members will agree that the emergence of an independent Gold Coast State is of great significance in Africa, and perhaps in the world generally. There are, however, a number of things which I should like to ask the Secretary of State. Before doing so, I would say how much we appreciate the contribution which the Secretary of State and the Government of the Gold Coast have made in trying to find a solution to a problem which was causing great anxiety everywhere, and which was calculated to undermine the political development of the Gold Coast and also to hold up the degree of economic stability which is necessary if independence is to be real.
I would put these points to the Secretary of State because we regard them as of some importance. First, may I ask that where a General Election is held, the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the conditions still exist in the Gold Coast for a calm Election? Is he satisfied that there are sufficient forces of law and order to make a General Election a reality so that the decisions which are necessary if constitutional development is to go on can be reached?
Further, I should like to know whether there have been any signs of a reconciliation as between the Ashanti people and the Northern Territories, on the one hand, and the Nkrumah Government on the other; or whether any steps are being taken to bring the contending parties together so that undue conflict in the General Election may not arise? Thirdly, I hope that when the Secretary of State talks of "full membership of the Commonwealth", provided all goes well in the new Legislature to be elected as a result of the General Election, there will be no retreat at all from the British


view that the Gold Coast ought to have its proper place inside the Commonwealth.
Finally, and on a matter of very considerable importance, I think that the question of the date of self-government is intimately tied to the question of the General Election and I should like to be assured that after the Election there will be no delay; and that in the Territory itself no hampering tactics will be tolerated which will cause the Secretary of State to delay the announcement of the date when responsible self-government will be established.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: First, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the kind words both about myself and the Governor of the Gold Coast? Secondly, on his question about the smooth conduct of an Election, I would say that this is, of course, for all the people of the Gold Coast themselves to ensure. I am certain that responsible leaders everywhere will realise their very real obligation in this matter.
The Governor tells me that he sees no reason why the Election should not be conducted smoothly and calmly. As to the forces to maintain law and order, I believe them to be quite adequate. On the question of the attitude of the people of Ashanti, I have not had a full report of the motion passed by the Asanteman Council but, from what I have seen of it, it seems to me to show hopeful indications. As to what the right hon. Gentleman said about full membership of the Commonwealth, I think that the views of Her Majesty's Government on this matter are well known. In a matter of this kind we must await the full consultation with our fellow members of the Commonwealth.
Finally, on the question as to when Her Majesty's Government would declare a firm date for the purpose as outlined in my statement, I do not think that I can add to the very carefully worded statement that I have already made.

Mr. Fort: Will my right hon. Friend accept from this side of the House, too, praise for his initiative in achieving progress in what was a very difficult situation? Can my right hon. Friend now tell us more about whether the General Election will be fought entirely under the present Constitution, or whether he

expects that there will be at least constitutional discussion going on in the Gold Coast with the view to agreeing on a new Constitution either as a basis for the forthcoming General Election or to be taken into account in the debates which will go on in connection with the General Election?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. It is intended that this Election should be fought under the existing Constitution.

Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side of the House warmly welcome his statement and look forward to a continuation of the good will and friendly relations which have always existed between ourselves and the peoples of the Gold Coast? Is he also aware that we share the anxieties of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) that a state of independence might be reached before the inner conflict and crisis in the country have been resolved? Further, is he aware that we on this side of the House, at any rate, support the idea that a General Election should be held as soon as possible? In view of the assurances that my right hon. Friend has given this morning about conditions, can he say whether he has any idea at all when a General Election might be held?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am certainly not in a position to say anything definite about that now, but I welcome the assurances from both sides of the House that it is the general view that the advice that I have given is right in the circumstances.

Mr. Smithers: As a member of the Parliamentary delegation which represented this House at the inauguration of the first Gold Coast Parliament, in 1951, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that since that time the Gold Coast politicians have successfully overcome some, though certainly by no means all, of the serious political problems which attend a bold, new political experiment; that this reflects to the credit both of the people of the Gold Coast and of the British officials; and that the good wishes of many friends of the Gold Coast in this country go with them in their future progress?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I fully endorse all that my hon. Friend has said.

Orders of the Day — HOTEL PROPRIETORS (LIABILITIES AND RIGHTS) BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1.—(INNS AND INKEEPERS.)

11.16 a.m.

Mr. Ede (South Shields): I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, after "and", to insert:
for the purposes of this Act only.
During the Committee stage, when we had the assistance of the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, we had some discussion about what was an inn in the eyes of the law. We were told that there is no definition in statutory law of what constitutes an inn; we have to depend on common law. I do not want to get involved in a long legal argument with either the promoter of the Bill or the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, but I want to be quite certain that no damage is done to the common law definition of an inn by the words in the Bill.
I am not concerned with the people who are brought in by the definition as conducting inns so much as with the people who by the definition in subsection (1) appear to be deprived of the position of innkeeper, and their customers deprived, at any rate under the Bill, of certain rights against an innkeeper. It may be that this might influence the general position of some people who are innkeepers now, but who will cease to be innkeepers under the Bill.
Subsection (1) gives a definition of what is not an inn. It says:
A hotel within the meaning of this Act shall…be deemed to be an inn…
Subsection (3) defines the expression "hotel". I have no objection to that part of the Bill. I am concerned with what is meant by the other words:
A hotel within the meaning of this Act shall, and any other establishment shall not, be deemed to be an inn…
Does the phrase
…within the meaning of this Act…
carry on over to the establishments that are not to be deemed inns in future? To secure that for certain, I have proposed

the Amendment to put in certain words so that the subsection will read:
…and for the purposes of this Act only any other establishment shall not, be deemed to be an inn…
That would make the position quite clear.
There are certain general liabilities on innkeepers, I understand, with which this Bill is not concerned at all. The Bill merely relieves the innkeeper of liabilities which he might incur over the loss of goods by guests staying at his inn, but, as I understand, the general responsibility of an innkeeper is to provide reasonable refreshments for visitors to his establishment. In the old days, when people travelled about the country on horseback, or in vehicles drawn by horses, there was also a liability to provide reasonable refreshment for the horse, or horses, as well as for the man.
The railways have very largely destroyed the trade from that point of view which is described by Dickens and by Cobbett, who gives some very amusing descriptions of what he saw through the windows of inns. On one occasion when he was wet through, he saw some men in the Red Lion Inn, at Thursley, sitting round the fire drinking their ale, smoking their pipes and carrying on a conversation on village politics. He thought they represented the real, collective wisdom of the country and would have rather joined in their deliberations than those of the Privy Council.
There are still a number of people who are dependent on inns for their reasonable refreshment when they are travelling on the roads. As President of the southern area of the Ramblers' Federation, I know the difficulties that are occasionally presented to the organisers of walks undertaken by those people in arranging for tea in the afternoon on such a ramble. When I was Home Secretary I was approached by the Federation and asked whether an innkeeper was under a liability to provide tea. I was assured that there appears to be no legal case on the matter and, when I attempted to get a definition, I was driven back on this common law definition. I was given to understand that both sides engaged the best lawyer they could find, hoped they would get in front of the best judge that could be found and that it would depend on the facts of the case whether the place was found to be an inn or not.
Although that is a nebulous position, at least it does not describe any building as not an inn. The difficulty of this Clause to me is that
A hotel within the meaning of this Act shall,…be deemed to be an inn;…and any other establishment shall not, be deemed to be an inn;".
I do not want it to be argued, if it is possible to argue, that those words would demote—if I may use that word—certain premises which are now inns into being not inns. I am not opposed to the general purposes of the Bill, but I am anxious to see it become law if that can be done with safety to the point of view I am putting forward. I do not want the Bill, when it becomes law, to be brought into court and it to be said, "This place is not an inn because the Hotel Proprietors (Liabilities and Rights) Bill, promoted by an hon. Member from Northern Ireland who took great care to exclude Northern Ireland from the provisions of the Bill, has declared that the premises about which dispute has arisen are not an inn for the purposes of the Act and probably are not an inn for certain other purposes."
I may be able to get help from the Solicitor-General on this point. I want to make quite certain that the Bill does not relieve innkeepers, who do not run hotels within the definition of the Bill, from their common law liability, as innkeepers, to the wayfarer and other persons who may satisfy all the conditions for receiving refreshments at an inn except that they will be told that the house is not an inn owing to the operations of this Measure.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I hope I can relieve the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) of what I might call his very proper anxiety that when he and I go striding about the hills of Surrey we may not get proper refreshment at the right places. I appreciate his anxiety and I hope I can relieve it.
The right hon. Member will remember that the Law Reform Committee, in paragraph 15 of its Report, pointed out that it was not within its province
to make any recommendations in regard to the duty to receive travellers which the criminal law imposes upon innkeepers, although if the civil law is altered in the way we recommend it may be found desirable to bring the criminal law into line on certain points. It

may, for instance, be thought necessary to alter the law in regard to an innkeeper's liability to receive a traveller's motor car, and we consider that the obligation to supply refreshments should be confined to those who are travellers within the meaning of paragraph 12 of this report.
That recommendation is not adopted in the Bill, with the object of avoiding the kind of result which the right hon. Member has in mind. What is done by Clause 1 (1) is not to make any alteration whatsoever in the common law definition of an inn. It merely enacts it, but does not alter it in any way. So nothing which previously was an inn will cease to be an inn by the definition set out here.
I think that that is enough to cover the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but I might emphasise it in this way: nothing in the Bill is dealing with the criminal law imposed obligation on the innkeeper to provide refreshments and to receive travellers. It does not touch that at all, but merely restricts his civil obligations in other respects. I can give the right hon. Member the assurance that nothing ceases to be an inn which was an inn before by reason of this definition, because the definition only enacts what the common law is. I hope that that will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman.
I would be compelled to ask the right hon. Gentleman not to insist on the Amendment because, obviously, it would be extremely inconvenient and, in practice. tire some if we had one definition here and another elsewhere and had to have a different definition of an inn in the criminal law. I hope that with the assurance I have given the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: May I ask the Solicitor-General to clear up one point? What the Law Reform Committee did was to consider the conception of a traveller. Paragraph 12 of the Report, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred, deals with that.
The point seems to be whether a traveller is a person who stays for the night at an inn and only such a person, or whether a traveller proceeding in a motor car—or, more healthily and more to the common good, on foot—arrives at the inn and, with no intention of staying there, asks for food and drink. The word


"traveller" is used again here. It is part of the definition of subsection (3). I think I am right in saying that "traveller," in that subsection, includes both types of traveller and, therefore, clearly includes the rambler, whom I think we all have in mind

11.30 a.m.

The Solicitor-General: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am much obliged to him for drawing attention to the way in which it is dealt with. There is further reference in Clause 2. but that does not touch the point now in question at all. I am obliged to him, and I agree.

Mr. Mitchison: When the Solicitor-General says that he agrees, I take it that he means that "traveller." in Clause 1. includes the rambler asking for food or drink?

The Solicitor-General: I do.

Mr. Ede: In view of the explanation given by the hon. and learned Gentleman, for which I thank him, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.32 a.m.

Mr. Phelim O'Neill: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I believe this Measure to be entirely non-controversial. As will be remembered, it received its Second Reading on the nod and went fairly briefly through its Committee stage unamended. The intention of the Bill, which is the result of the Report of the Law Reform Committee, has merely been to bring up to date the law relating to innkeepers' liabilities and rights. I am very grateful to all hon. Members who have facilitated the Bill's progress. If any of my hon. Friends or any hon. Members opposite wish any more information about the Bill, I shall be only too ready as far as it lies within my power, to give it, although I am a layman and not a lawyer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) has on the Order Paper a Bill of very much greater interest to many hon. Members

on both sides, and I do not wish to detain the House in any further consideration of this Measure, which, I believe, commands the support of both sides.

11.33 a.m.

Sir Charles Taylor: In supporting the Third Reading of the Bill, I suppose I ought to declare an interest—hon. Members know that I have connections with the hotel industry. I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. P. O'Neill) on the way he has piloted this Bill through the House. I think we should also thank him for his generosity in attending to this Measure which, as hon. Members now know, does not affect Northern Ireland.

11.34 a.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I should just like to say just a word or two about the Bill. At bottom, it seems to me to be motivated by the modern practice of driving about the country, calling at inns and putting one's motor car in places where the vehicle is exposed to risk. We are now quite a long way from the days when there were no motor cars. Then we proceeded by horse in one way or another and there were questions as to whether there was a liability with respect to the horse. One must not exaggerate the importance of the modern horse. Some of us have a sentimental feeling for an animal, and the curious provision in this Bill is that if one rides to a place and stables one's horse in the inn in the old-fashioned way, the horse does not appear to be a vehicle and the Bill does not appear to touch any question of liability with regard to the animal.
The provision clearly covers the motor car, and the Law Reform Committee stipulated that a motor bicycle should also be included. May I ask the Solicitor-General whether it is quite clear that a "vehicle" includes a motor bicycle, where it occurs in this Bill? And is it also quite clear that a "vehicle" includes an ordinary bicycle or tricycle as the case may be?

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

11.36 a.m.

Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I hope the House will bear with me if I address some remarks to it on this occasion, since I have had much to do with the conception of this Bill, though, owing to illness, I was not present for its Second Reading.
I regret very much that my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) cannot be in his place today. It was due to his initiative, and to his generosity in giving up to my Bill his place in the Private Members' Ballot, that we have been able to reach the stage we are now discussing. With his energy and enthusiasm he has been a pillar of strength throughout. It is quite right and proper that if the Bill reaches the Statute Book it should carry his name.
I must also thank the National Insurance Advisory Committee—that body of wise men and women—the main considerations and recommendations of whose Report are now embodied in this Bill. It was an outstanding Report, and adds yet another to the many Reports which have earned the respect and thanks of all those who are interested in these subjects.
I should like also to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister. He has been most helpful, particularly in the later stages. Even when we have had our differences, namely, on matters of timing, he has always been sympathetic, courteous and helpful.
Perhaps I might now refer to a leader which appeared in the Manchester Guardian on Wednesday, and which many hon. Members may have read. It referred, first, to the Government using a Private Member's Bill to implement policy, and, secondly, to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee having been introduced into the Bill at this stage—"spatchcocked" was the curious word used. On the point of the Government using a Private Member's Bill, I want to

make it quite clear to the House that this is a Conservative Private Member's Bill. It is promoted by us, drafted by us, carried through by us, and we alone are responsible for its virtues and for its faults.
It is true that in his statement last Monday my right hon. Friend stated that the Government accepted the recommendations of the Report. But the position of the promoters of the Bill is an odd one. Having made our position clear, having tabled our Amendments and having given due warning of our intention, if necessary, to rebel, we find that just as we are about to unfurl the standard of revolt the potential foe has quietly joined our ranks. All I can say is, "All's well that ends well."
On the second point—the "spatchcocking"—this is a misunderstanding on the part of the leader writer due to a failure to read and understand the original Bill. Also, I do not think that I made clear in Committee the point that I am now making. Anyone who carefully read the Bill unamended, and who has read the Report, will realise that every single recommendation of the Advisory Committee which falls within the scope of this Bill could have been carried out under the original Clause 2.
Why, then, did we find it necessary to amend the Bill? Because there was one snag. To carry out the recommendations would have involved making use of the regulation-making powers given to the Minister under Clause 2, and that, in turn, would have involved invoking the machinery devised in the National Insurance Act, 1946.
What would have happened is this. The Bill having become law, draft regulations could have been laid, based on the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, and they would all then have had to be referred back to the Advisory Committee for its consideration—consideration, in fact, of regulations based on its own recommendations. Obviously, this would have meant considerable delay. It would also have involved an interim period when there would have been more than one rate of earnings limit in operation. I think that, apart from anything else, that was quite sufficient justification for the Amendment which was ultimately accepted by the Committee.
On the Bill as it now comes before the House, I would say that this is not a Bill of major importance, of earth-shaking importance, but it will affect the lives of many thousands in this country. I believe that it will bring a much welcome relaxation of the earnings rule, which has never really been understood by those whom it most affects. I do not propose to enlarge on all the detailed provisions of the Bill, but I would say that we are proud and glad at having achieved that relaxation.
Let me repeat that we, the promoters of the Bill, stand firmly by the principle of a pension given for retirement from full-time work, defended, as it must be, my an earnings rule. That was the original proposal in the Beveridge Report, and that principle has been endorsed by every subsequent Government. But the earnings rule, the limit on what can be earned, must be kept in step with changing conditions, with rising wage rates.
The one feature to which I would like to draw attention in the Bill is that the method over a certain range has been changed. It is now provided that over a range of 20s. in the case of all benefits, instead of there being a total reduction of 1s. in 1s., a sliding scale is now to come into force under which 6d. in 1s. will be deducted.
I would point out that this is, in fact, the original scheme that Lord Beveridge put forward in his Report. Let me quote his words. He wrote:
First, the proposal to increase pensions if retirement is postponed and contributions continue to be made, will give all classes alike an economic motive not to claim pensions, while they are still able to work with any regularity.
The Report goes on to say that
…retirement means giving up regular earnings, not being idle 100 per cent. of one's time.
His proposal for meeting that point was this:
Every person receiving pension will be required to sign a periodic declaration
as to his earnings; and then he used these words:
From one-half to two-thirds of the excess above £3 a month will be deducted from his pension…
That was the first reference to the partial deduction which we have introduced in the Bill. This idea was dropped

in the 1946 Measure in favour of a flat earnings limit of 20s. and thereafter 1s. for 1s. deduction. That 20s., as the House will recall, was raised to 40s. in the National Insurance Act, 1951, an important and courageous step forward that the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill), as Minister of National Insurance, then took. I believe that although it was popular in many quarters, it was unpopular in others.
Perhaps I may be allowed to recall that on that Measure my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) and I proposed an Amendment to introduce a sliding scale for certain classes of pension, and I refer to that now for one reason. We must face it that these new arrangements will not be very easy to administer or to explain. I should like my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to deal with this point when she replies.
This was the comment on my proposal by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) on 9th May, 1951, when he described the proposal as "very novel." He went on to say:
…the Amendment…with its sliding scale arrangement, is so full of complications that it would be confusing to the pensioners, and…from the Department's point of view, because of the complications and the confusion it was likely to create, it would be almost impossible to administer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 9th May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 2081.]
I want the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to give the House, if she will, an assurance, amplifying what my right hon. Friend said when he accepted the recommendations, her Department having five years and two days after those remarks changed its mind completely and accepted the point of view expressed by two Opposition back benchers. Is the Department certain that it can administer and explain these proposals, for if it fails to explain this to the public we shall be in considerable difficulties?
The whole trouble with the retirement principle and the earnings rule is that when we made the complete and total change in 1946 we did not really try to educate the public to what it involved. It is an extraordinary fact, that one may discern if one studies the debates on the then National Insurance Bill, that this major change was so little discussed. Apart from one speech in Committee by


my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson), one gets the impression that scarcely any hon. Members even realised the change that was being made. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who is not in his place but who designs to be an inveterate opponent of the earnings rule, never even referred to it in the admirable and moving speech which he made on the Second Reading of that Measure. So I think I am now entitled to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary what steps her Department will take to ensure that this principle is understood and accepted by the people as a whole.
I conclude with a word about some of the principles of National Insurance which are involved. The retirement pensions, the earnings rule, and all the other features of National Insurance are not immutable. We have tinkered with the original Bill and amended it—not only the provisions relating to rates and benefits—but in details as well. To those in this House who still oppose the earnings rule I would say that, although I oppose them now, we can and we must be open-minded and on the alert for new solutions to the problem which we are trying to solve, but do not let us ever make any change in the basic principles in too much of a hurry. There is far too much at stake in these matters. I believe that the Bill is a change for the better which will be welcomed by many thousands of people throughout the country.

11.54 a.m.

Sir Lancelot Joynson-Hicks: I have very great pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan). He said he did not claim that this was an epoch-making Measure. My hon. Friend certainly does not exaggerate at any time, and one must in strictness agree with him in that estimation, but, nevertheless, this is a Measure which will bring a tremendous amount of relief and a tremendous amount of mental comfort to a very large body of people. I myself, representing a constituency in which a considerable number of people of retirement age live, know how hardly the present system has pressed upon them and how greatly they will be able to add to their comforts and to their pleasures in life by the operation of the measures which are contained in the Bill.

11.56 a.m.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I shall not detain the House for very long, but I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) upon the interest which he has shown in this question. I differ from him because of the fact that the Bill does not go far enough. I have received, as other hon. Members have received, many letters from old-age pensioners who complain bitterly about the limitation upon their possible income if they continue to work after the age of 65 or accept work after they have retired on pension. We on this side of the House believe in the principle of retirement on pension, but at the same time we recognise that in a period of full employment there is opportunity for old-age pensioners who want to work to go on giving some service in their districts, perhaps to small employers, perhaps to big employers, perhaps even in some cases to local authorities, who can employ them for two or three days a week.
I differ from the hon. Member for Reigate about his acceptance of the limit of 50s., which is too low. I should have liked to see a much higher figure to encourage those old-age pensioners who want to continue in employment. We are in a period of full employment, and I hope we shall always be, but if there were unemployment again, old-age pensioners would have very little opportunity of working and would have to exist on their basic pensions and supplementary pensions. I should like to see those improved, but we are not discussing that principle today.
The hon. Member for Reigate said that this was not an important Bill but that it was a human Bill. We would all agree with that latter sentiment. In my opinion, there is nothing in the world more human than helping the old people who have devoted their lives to industry. My regret is that the Bill, which originally contained a figure of 60s. week, has been amended to make the figure 50s. because the promoters accepted a Government Amendment to that end. That is my regret. While supporting the Bill, I hope that in the near future we shall allow old-age pensioners to earn more than 50s. a week without deductions from their pensions, allowing, instead of that amount, a much higher figure.

11.59 a.m.

Mr. Albert Evans: I. too, should like to congratulate the promoter and supporters of the Bill, and in particular I sincerely say that the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) has performed a notable service in framing the Bill and in guiding it through its various stages. Ever since he came to the House he has taken a close interest in this and kindred subjects, and it is to his credit that finally, when opportunity came to him, he used it to bring forward a Private Member's Bill to raise the amount of money which a retirement pensioner may earn before his pension is reduced. The hon. Member has done that with not very much encouragement from the Government formed by his own party.
Congratulations are due to the hon. Member for Reigate, because I think there are few people on either side of the House who would not agree that he in particular deserves the thanks of the House and the thanks of those working pensioners who will benefit from the Bill when it becomes an Act. I am sorry that the hon. Member is not supported by their presence in the Chamber today by many of those who put their names to the Bill. Most of the backers of this Bill are absent this morning, which is rather surprising. I do not wish to add a note of discord while congratulating the hon. Gentleman, but I think it is a great pity that so many of his hon. Friends who put their names to the Bill are not here this morning to see it through its final stage.
On this occasion we should also extend our congratulations a little wider. Indeed, I think I can venture to congratulate myself, for I remember putting down a number of Questions to the then Minister of National Insurance on this very point, more than three years ago, and all of us can recollect occasions within the last three years on which Members in all parts of the House have questioned the Minister of the day and urged him to do something about raising the earnings limit.
The pressure that has been exerted on the Government in this matter has come from all sides of the House, and has not been confined to those fortunate back bench Members who happened to have the opportunity of introducing this

Private Member's Bill. The back bencher has been responsible for pressing the Government to agree to this Measure, and I view this Bill as a victory for the private Member over the Executive. The Executive has finally been forced to give way, and I personally like to find the hon. Member for Reigate in the position of a rebel. I think he does exceptionally well as a rebel against his own Government. I hope that he will on other occasions take his courage into his hands and rebel against his Government, because we can see that it yields dividends.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: My difficulty as a rebel is that the Government always follow me.

Mr. Evans: if the hon. Member continues to act as a rebel on subjects such as this, which is of particular interest to hon. Members on this side of the House, he may be assured that we shall be behind him and give him all the support we can. If he could take the matter so far as to defeat his own Government, let me assure him that he would have the full support of hon. Members on these benches.
The House is at its best when private Members are deciding that something should be done and urging the Executive to take the necessary action. We are entitled to congratulate the House of Commons on having gained this victory over the Government of the day. We know that this Bill is necessary, because all of us have on some occasion or other received evidence of the need for an increase in the amount that may be earned by a retired pensioner before a deduction is made from the pension. We have all had such cases, and we know that many of those who are retired but are still doing a part-time job feel real dissatisfaction and discontent when having by some means or other earned 10s. or £1 a week, they have found that their pension has been reduced by a like amount. That is most unfair, and their discontent is quite genuine.
We also know that the fact of the earnings rule being so low has resulted in some evasion taking place. In fact, the Minister had an Advisory Committee which mentioned this very point. I think that that Committee stated that the evidence suggested that such evasion was


widespread. It is always a matter of concern to us when persons attempt genuinely to take action to evade the law, and it is a matter of concern to this House. We know that evasion has gone on, and that employers and retired workers have collaborated one with another in order to hide the true amount of earnings received by the pensioners. We hope the Bill will tend to diminish the amount of evasion that has unduobtedly been going on in the past.
There is an underlying cause of all the discontent and the consequent pressure which hon. Members of this House have exerted on the Government to agree to this Bill, which is necessary, and to which the House will give a Third Reading today. That underlying cause is surely the constant decline in the value of money over recent years, which fact has been the main economic factor which has forced hon. Members to stir the Government to action and force them to agree that this Bill is necessary.
More and more, every month we see the value of money going down, and that is a serious matter, with which we cannot deal today. I am sure that that has been the cause of the pressure in this direction, and that it is the reason why the Government have finally given way and have agreed that the amount that can be earned without deduction of pension must be raised.
We know as a matter of hard fact that the value of money has diminished considerably, because the cost of essential items has gone up by over 50 per cent. since the pension was first introduced. We know that this considerable rise in the cost of essential items means very much more to retired persons than it does to people who are still able to earn a full income. As a result of the constant increases in the cost of these essential items, many of these pensioners have been obliged to do extra work, and have been brought up sharply against the earnings rule, to find that the amount which they could earn without deduction from their pension was very small.
We ought to be clear about the number of people affected by the Bill. The hon. Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks) seemed to suggest that very large numbers were involved, but, in fact, that

is not so. We know that, of the 4½ million retirement pensioners, only about 136,000 will actually be affected by the Bill and the provision concerning the amount that may be earned, and the majority of them are women. Only one in every thirty-three or thirty-four retired pensioners will be affected, so that it is a very limited Bill.
I am not saying that the Bill is not valuable because it is so limited, but certainly its scope is limited because it affects a very small proportion of the total number of retired people receiving pensions under the National Insurance Act. Even the position of this small number will not be altered by the Bill. Many of the 136,000 are already earning beyond the limit, and will continue to do so, and therefore will not receive any benefit.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I do not think that that is quite correct. They must receive the amount of relaxation that is given in the Bill.

Mr. Evans: If their earnings are already beyond 50s. plus the sixpence calculation for each shilling up to 70s.—in other words, if they are earning 126s.—

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: They are getting 40s. now and they will get 60s. under the Bill.

Mr. Evans: Surely a pensioner can be earning so much that his entire pension is wiped out. The hon. Member will find that quite a number of those who have retired on pension have had their pensions extinguished because of their earnings.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: 1 am afraid that I do not quite follow what the hon. Member means, but that point is covered in the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee by the recommendation on going back to work, and is outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Evans: I agree that that is not covered by the Bill, but 29,000 of the 136,000 whom I have mentioned are people who are earning so much that they would receive no benefit from the Bill. Therefore, we reach a final figure that no more than 100,000 people will benefit, which is a comparatively small figure.

Mr. Ede: Can my hon. Friend say where he gets that figure of 100,000. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance said on Second Reading:
About 130,000—that is 47,000 men and 83,000 women—are believed to be working, and of these about 20,000 men and 15,000 women have their pensions adjusted because their earnings exceed the limit of £2…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 1260.]
It seems to me, therefore, that 35,000 and not 100,000 are affected by the existing law.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): There are in fact about 100,000 who are earning less than £2. That is the total figure to which the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) referred.

Mr. Evans: I am afraid that I am not much clearer as a result of these figures being bandied round the Chamber. The Advisory Committee puts the matter on record, and states quite clearly that 29,000 men and women have had their pensions entirely extinguished because their earnings were well above the limit. We know that those people will benefit from the Bill.
I think that possibly the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave misleading figures in Committee. According to the Advisory Committee's Report, the number of men on reduced pension was not 20,000 but 2,000 and the number of women not 15,000 but 5,000. However, perhaps I have laboured the point too long and I will move on. I am glad that the hon. Member for Reigate has taken my point, and that the misunderstanding has now been cleared up.
I am sure that the 100,000 will be very pleased to be able to earn another £1 a week, and I am sure that we agree that they will be very much in need of that additional amount of earnings. I am sure that the House will pass the Bill today. We all agree that it is necessary, but we should be mindful of what we are doing. We wish to help the people who will be affected, but we should realise that every time we raise the amount that may be earned by the retired pensioner before his pension is reduced we weaken the principle that retirement goes with pension, which was implicit in Lord Beveridge's proposals and has been

adhered to by the two great 'parties In the State.
If we take this matter too far, the principle of retirement will disappear. I cannot go into that subject within the confines of the Bill. It raises wide issues and a matter which some day the House will have to go into very closely, but for the present we can be glad that we are patching up the insurance scheme in one little respect, and giving assistance to a few pensioners. The whole principle of retirement pensions is in jeopardy when we raise the amount that can be earned, although today I am sure that we are glad to give a Third Reading to the Bill.

12.16 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): We have come today a stage further with a Private Member's Bill which is designed to help certain National Insurance beneficiaries. It is perhaps something of a record, because when the Bill goes through its final stages, it will be the first time that the National Insurance Scheme has been amended by a Private Member's Bill.
Congratulations seem to be the order of the day, and I should like to join with other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) and his colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset. North (Mr. Leather) on their luck in the Ballot, which enabled them to present the Bill. I hope that they will be equally lucky in any future investment in which they may indulge.
Luck, or perhaps foresight is the better word, was involved in choosing this subject, which we are well aware is of considerable public interest and commands widespread sympathy. I feel, however, that it was not just awareness of public sympathy which promoted my hon. Friends to choose the earnings rule as a matter for their Bill. Over the years, they have given considerable care and thought to the position of pensioners. This especially applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, who has many times spoken in the House on the matter. The fact that their thoughts were on the right lines, is confirmed by the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee whose recommendations, though


not identical with the proposals now contained in this Bill were, in the main, acceptable to the Government.
I believe that the promoters were wise in deferring the Committee stage, as they agreed to do on Second Reading on 3rd February, until the Report on Earnings Limits had been received from the National Insurance Advisory Committee. Not all the recommendations of that Committee have been included in the Bill, because they are not within its scope. Indeed, two of them have been altered although included in the Bill.
I think it is most fortunate, however, that the Bill was available as a vehicle to enable the Government quickly to give effect to a large part of the Committee's Report. I noticed, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate who has already commented upon it, the report in a provincial newspaper which questioned the propriety of recommendations of a statutory advisory committee being spatchcocked into a Bill before the House could pronounce upon them.
Surely it was fortunate for the promoters, and—much more important—for the people affected by the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee that this useful Bill was available. In fact, it will probably create another record, because I believe this is the shortest time between presentation of a Report from the National Insurance Advisory Committee and its translation into a Bill. That is something which I hope will please the members of that Committee, who have given considerable time and thought to the preparation of the Report.
Here, I want to join in the thanks already expressed to the members of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, for reporting so quickly and for giving priority to this work. I want also to thank all those organisations and individuals who made representations to that Committee, which enabled it to give us such a thoughtful Report. I imagine that hon. Members of this House who are present today will have read it in detail, but I commend that Report to everybody else who is interested in the welfare of the pensioners. It is worth study, because it is a well-reasoned Report.
The Bill, as now amended, receives the support of the Government because it

coincides with Government policy. This was announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister in his statement on Monday, 7th May. Contrary to what has been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans), that the Executive has been forced to come into line, I want to stress that this is Government policy. I dealt with the history and the reasons for the retirement principle in the Second Reading debate and I do not want to cover that ground again. I am aware that the need for an earnings rule is still questioned, but successive Governments have accepted the retirement principle, and if we accept that, then we must also accept the earnings rule which is a necessary complement to it.
These are the facts, whatever we may think about the earnings rule. What the Bill will do is to ease the operation of the earnings rule. It is not a question of pensioners being allowed—or not allowed to earn. Here again, I want to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Islington, South-West. Although perhaps it was not his intention, the hon. Gentleman fell into the common trap of stating that pensioners should be allowed to earn more. Pensioners may earn as much as they wish, but when earnings are above a certain figure then retirement pension is reduced because of the operation of the earnings rule. However, there has never been any restriction on the amount of money which a pensioner may earn.

Mr. A. Evans: I am sure the hon. Lady will understand that, when I said that pensioners should be allowed to earn more, it was implied that they should be able to earn more without deduction from their pension.

Miss Pitt: That is very different. Quite commonly people, not necessarily hon. Members of this House, who are interested in the welfare of pensioners say that pensioners are only allowed to earn so much. I want to try to get that clear.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: That is because we talk colloquially about the earnings limit. As my hon. Friend has said, we all understand what that means, but many people have the impression that there is an over-riding limit on the amount which can be earned.

Miss Pitt: Yes, I am aware of that, and the more we can say to dispel that impression, the better. Frequently, we use misleading terms. For instance, pensioners are frequently referred to as old-age pensioners instead of as retirement pensioners, which is the correct description.
To come back to this Bill, my hon. Friend has dealt with the details which are not part of my duty, but I ought briefly to state that retirement and widow pensioners will be able to earn up to 50s. before there is any deduction from pension. Thereafter, 6d. in the 1s. will be deducted for earnings between 50s. and 70s. About 100,000 retirement pensioners are now earning below £2 and I will try to get these figures clear. In the Second Reading debate on 3rd February, I stated that about 130,000 pensioners were able to work. I gave separate figures for men and women, but I will not weary the House with them today.
I said that of these, about 35,000 men and women together have their pension adjusted because their earnings exceed the limit of £2. That is still approximately the figure. It is repeated in the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, as hon. Members will see if they will refer to paragraph 19, on page 10. There is a slight difference in the number of pensions completely extinguished but, in general, those figures agree with the ones I gave on 3rd February.
The number we ought to have in mind, particularly today, is that of the 100,000 retirement pensioners whose earnings, as we know in the Ministry, are now slightly below £2. They are the people, I hope, who will derive most benefit from this Bill, because they will be able to earn up to 50s. a week without any deduction. If they are able and willing to work more, they can go on to earn 100s. before their pension is extinguished.
A point often raised with us at the Ministry is that people on a part-time job, who find that their employers are prepared to give them an increase in pay or a bonus, even on the limited amount of work they do, find that this brings them above the present limit of £2. They are, therefore, no better off as a result of the increase or bonus. Under this Bill, they

will be. That is why I particularly want to stress that it is, in the main, 100,000 people who will be affected.
When the limit is increased—now I have fallen into the trap and used the word "limit"—when the figure of earnings disregarded is increased, I hope that we shall find that more pensioners are willing to take on part-time work. It is good for them and for the nation's production. I believe, also, that the suggestion of tapering off—the 6d. in the 1s. sliding scale, recommended in this Bill—could help to remove some of the misunderstanding about the earnings rule which still exists, and which we have already mentioned in this debate.
The Bill also provides that, in the case of widowed mothers, earnings up to 60s. can be disregarded. Between 60s. and 80s., the sliding scale of 6d. in the Is. will operate. Here the Bill departs from the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, but the Bill preserves the 20s. differential for widowed mothers and gives them the same range of 6d. in the 1s. deductions as widows and retirement pensioners are to get. I am certain that we all agree with that. We wish to maintain the preferential treatment given to widowed mothers.
Here, as I said, the Bill differs from the Committee's recommendation, because the Committee recommended that the 6d. in the 1s. should operate over a smaller range of 10s.—that is, earnings between 60s. and 70s. This proposal is, therefore, more generous, and I am glad about that. I feel that the widowed mother who has children to care for deserves our very special consideration, and I have never found a phrase which more adequately describes the position of such women than that used by the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) in a debate in the House—a phrase repeated in the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee. Referring to the widowed mother, the right hon. Lady said:
Overnight, she suddenly becomes the wage earner, the home maker and the protector of her children."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 1984.]
I think that that is a very apt description. It is a point which we must always have in mind. I am glad that, in this direction, my hon. Friend the Member for


Reigate has improved on the recommendation of the National Insurance Advisory Committee. The Government agree with him.
Another point arising from the provisions of the Bill is the recommendation for the use of the calendar week instead of the pension week, which is the practice at present. When a pensioner has casual earnings, as hon. Members will be well aware, the deduction is made from the pension week which runs from Thursday to Wednesday. It therefore sometimes happens that two calendar weeks' work affect three weeks' pension because of the application of the pension week.
Not unnaturally, there has been a certain amount of resentment about that. It is true that when the new recommendation comes into operation it may not always be favourable to the pensioner. We do not know, at the Ministry, in how many cases the present rule of applying pension weeks has worked in favour of the pensioners, but there must have been many cases. Because it does not cause discontent, we have not heard of them. But we do hear of those instances where the pensioner does a fortnight's work and finds that deductions are made over three weeks' pension.
Perhaps a simple illustration—one which I have found fairly often in my correspondence at the Ministry—is the common case of a retirement pensioner doing a couple of weeks' Christmas work at the Post Office. Because he earned over three pension weeks, he often found that his pension was extinguished or re-reduced for those three weeks. Naturally, he felt that he was not being treated fairly. The new recommendation will remove that difficulty. I believe that, on balance, it will benefit the great majority of pensioners who do casual work.
On Second Reading, on 3rd February, I said that
on receipt of the Report the Government will quickly reach and announce decisions in this matter.
I think I can claim today that the Government have carried out that promise. I also said—and this was quoted in Committee on the Bill by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), whom I am sorry not to see here today because he is very constant in his attention to the welfare of pensioners:

We all want to help—perhaps 'encourage' would be a better word—older people to lead the fullest life possible and in as much comfort as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1956; Vol. 548, c. 1263.]
I believe that this Bill is a measure of improvement which will help to fulfil our ambition of providing as much comfort as possible to pensioners. It assists the retirement pensioners and the widowed pensioners.
I want to take up one or two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate about the operation of the Bill. The Minister will make the appointed day as soon as possible after the Bill receives the Royal Assent. My hon. Friend asked what steps we were taking to make the effects of the Bill known. We propose to use publicity to the maximum extent. We shall issue leaflets and advertise the change in the local offices of the Ministry and post offices. We hope to enlist the help of broadcasters and those who write newspaper articles. We also hope that hon. Members will assist us by advising their constituents of the change.
My hon. Friend asked me to give an assurance that there will be no administrative difficulties in the operation of the sliding scale earnings rule and that pensioners will understand it easily. I can only say that although the sliding scale has never been tried before, we can foresee no difficulties. When my hon. Friend raised this matter five years ago his recommendation, if I remember correctly, was for a deduction of 3d, in the 1s. I can understand that that might be a little more difficult to operate and a little less easy to understand. On the other hand, 50 per cent. is something which most of us can grasp, whereas 3d. in the Is. is a little more difficult. In any event, there has been a change since then, as my hon. Friend is well aware, and the Ministry believe that we can manage this job.
Whether pensioners will understand only time will tell. I think that perhaps they may not easily understand the new rule, although most of them now accept the present earnings rule and that if they earn above £2 a week they should declare their earnings. Some of them, I suspect, will have a pleasant surprise, when this Bill comes into operation, to find that they may earn up to 50s. without deduction of pension.
We will try, as we always do, to be as lucid and clear as we can in our leaflets and the instructions in the pensions order book. As at present we shall put in plenty of examples of how the rule works. Indeed, we are prepared to see whether a simple table is possible so that the pensioner can read off the pension he draws against wages he earns.
We shall be very glad to have ideas from hon. Members if they wish to help us, and I think hon. Members could help us by making the new rules known in their constituencies, perhaps by putting up notices at the advice bureaux which they run and by talking about this change, which we hope will come into force very shortly, whenever they are in their constituencies.
I am glad to support the Third Reading of the Bill, which I personally welcome and which is acceptable to the Government.

12.39 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: At the very outset of her speech I felt that the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston was speaking rather as Member for Edgbaston than as Parliamentary Secretary. At any rate, I could construe her reference to the Manchester Guardian as "a provincial newspaper" only as a piece of Birmingham patriotism. If she travels abroad I doubt whether she will find it as easy to put her hand on a copy of the Birmingham Post as on a copy of the Manchester Guardian.
With the rest of her speech I find no reason to quarrel, and I particularly welcome the thanks which she extended to the National Insurance Advisory Committee for the skill, speed and ingenuity with which it examined the problem and presented its Report. I thought that in extending congratulations to the Committee on the speed with which the job was done, she might, although she would naturally not want to throw bouquets to this side of the House, have tossed a couple of flowers in this direction, because I doubt whether the Bill would have reached the Statute Book so quickly, had we not co-operated a great deal.
I join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan). It is always a great source of pleasure to an hon. Member who has

promoted a Bill to see it nearing its haven, and I hope that the Bill will reach its haven before very long. I can understand that the hon. Member for Reigate feels a great debt of gratitude to his hon. Friend the Member for Somerset. North (Mr. Leather). However, he did not do very much to remind us how different from the original Bill, which the hon. Member for Somerset, North introduced, the Bill now is.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: indicated dissent.

Mr. Marquand: The hon. Member shakes his head, but the Bill is substantially different and the difference is not only in form. The hon. Member indicated that the form of the Bill was somewhat different from the original, but the content is also substantially different.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I do not want that statement to continue to be repeated. I tried to explain in Committee that I knew that the Advisory Committee would have two alternatives. There is a fence, and the Committee could have come down on either side. I wanted to provide a happy landing on either side.

Mr. Marquand: I fully accept that. I was not thinking of what the hon. Member for Reigate intended—unfortunately, because of illness, he did not have the opportunity of explaining—but more of the very eloquent speech made by the hon. Member for Somerset, North in the Second Reading debate.
The hon. Member for Reigate almost suggested that the Government capitulated to him and to his hon. Friend in accepting a Bill of this nature. It seemed to us in Committee that the capitulation was the other way round. We witnessed the hon. Member for Somerset, North, who had put a figure of 60s. into his Bill, voting against an Amendment put by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to maintain that figure. The capitulation was almost without a word said.
I am sorry to have to say this sort of thing in the absence of the hon. Member for Somerset, North, but, of course, I am not responsible for that. I understand that he may have undertaken a journey to a distant part of the country to take part tonight in a session of "Any Questions". If that be so, I feel sure that if any old-age pensioners are


present, the session will be a good deal more lively than some of the sessions are. It is a pity that we are denied today the opportunity of hearing the explanation which the hon. Member for Somerset, North certainly did not give us in Committee.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The right hon. Member will not forget that he himself did not vote.

Mr. Marquand: I have taken a perfectly consistent attitude throughout. I have accepted the Bill with same modified enthusiasm and I have never indicated that I was a supporter of the 60s. figure which the hon. Member for Somerset. North introduced.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman vote against it? He did not even sit on the fence. He lay on it, prone, inert and silent.

Mr. Marquand: I did not vote against it and I did not vote for it. I regarded this little controversy as a domestic affair which it was amusing to watch, and I took up a position in which I could best watch it.
I was about to say that the Bill has been accepted by us with modified enthusiasm. We recognise that the Bill is necessary, particularly because throughout the period of office of the present Government prices have been rising, the value of money has been falling, and it has been necessary again and again at many points to adjust sums of money which are mentioned in various Bills to take account of that fact. It was therefore entirely proper to say that in this case we should, for the figure of 40s., substitute 50s. We have never had any doubts about that.
In Committee we expressed some misgivings about the possible danger which might have arisen about the earnings rule. I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Reigate say that he wanted to make it clear that he stood behind the retirement principle and the earnings rule which must inevitably and always go with it. It was good to have that assurance because, as I have said already, we had some fears that there might be a temptation to some hon. Members opposite and other people in the country from time to time to say, "Pensioners can earn; many of them are earning fairly decent amounts

of money, as well as receiving a pension. Why should they grumble about the rate of pension? We might as well leave the rate of pension as it is and increase the permitted amount of earnings".
We do not wish to see that kind of thing develop. We want to ensure that the rate of pension is satisfactory to cover basic subsistence needs. We have been told today that the number of people who may benefit from the Bill is small. Whatever the figures—and there has been some dispute about them—they are very small indeed, and only a very small proportion of the total number of pensioners covered by the National Insurance Act, 1946, will benefit from the Bill. It follows all the more, therefore, that an argument based on the belief that pensioners can work and supplement their pensions to a substantial extent and that therefore their pensions can remain at a more or less nominal figure, is entirely unjustified.
There is one respect in which the Bill does not follow the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. As hon. Members who have followed the discussions know very well, it is that whereas the Advisory Committee thought that the deduction range for a widowed mother could be the same as that for other pensioners, the Bill provides a different range. It permits a widowed mother to earn up to 80s. before deductions begin, whereas for widows and other pensioners the deductions begin after 70s.
I have already referred to misgivings about the danger of using actual earnings by pensioners as an argument for suggesting that their basic pension is sufficient and need not be increased. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary quoted what my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) said some time ago when she introduced a provision to make a difference between that figure and other pensions. I do not at all dissent from anything which she then said. I firmly and entirely agree with her description of the position of the mother who becomes a widow and suddenly finds herself confronted with the difficulty of maintaining a family.
I hate to be personal in my speeches in the House of Commons, but nobody knows better than I do what it is to be the son of a widow. Fortunately, I was not very young when that happened,


but I do know about it and because I have had personal experience of this matter, I want to ensure that the widowed mother with children to bring up has a basic pension and allowance adequate to maintain them without her having to go out to work.
During the Committee stage the Minister said, "Ah, the circumstances vary. Children grow up: mothers remain fit and able and can go out to work, and it is not unreasonable to permit them this more generous "—that was the phrase used by the hon. Lady today—" earnings limit." If that is so, well and good, but do not let the comparatively favourable circumstances of certain widows lead us to disregard the great hardship that falls upon the younger widow with a young family. Do not let her have to rely upon the necessity of going out to work.
Do not let us, in increasing the incentive for widows to go to work, forget the necessity to ensure that through the children's allowance—and that is the only way it can be done without altering the basic pension—the widow has enough money with which to keep her young family without having to go out to work. If I go ally further I may be trespassing outside the realms of the Bill, but I want to make that point very clearly today.
We recognise that this Bill is appropriate at the present time for various reasons, particularly because of the rise in prices. We do not—

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I really do not think that the right hon. Gentleman should bring that in.

Mr. Marquand: We will not now enter into the economic application of the argument about which comes first, the chicken or the egg.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: As regards the retirement principle and the earnings rule, wages are the most important factor.

Mr. Marquand: Wages are the most important factor precisely because the purchasing power of wages makes them worth having, and it is by their purchasing power that we must test the adequacy of wages, pensions and earnings. The hon. Gentleman is very touchy on these points. He wants his Bill to go through and yet he does not want me to say why we think the Bill should go through.

I have given way to him a great deal, but I suggest to him that it is sometimes a good idea to keep a still tongue in a wise head. If he angers me very much, we might continue for much longer this morning.
We recognise the necessity for the Bill, and hope that it will reach the Statute Book. Nevertheless, we want to draw the attention of the House and the country to the necessity for watching all the time the adequacy of the basic pension and of never allowing that to escape attention.

12.54 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes, and I apologise for not being able to be here when the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) moved the Third Reading of his Bill. I am not going to allow anything said by the hon. Member for Somerset. North (Mr. Leather) on 3rd February to cloud my judgment of the Bill or to detract from the welcome to the changes contained in it. We must not hold the hon. Member for Reigate responsible for anything that was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North a few months ago. The hon. Member for Somerset, North threatened the Government, intimidated the Advisory Committee and defied the T.U.C. in as many sentences. I said at the time that it was not perhaps the best beginning for his advocacy of the proposals of the Bill. Still, here it is.
The Committee stage was postponed until we received the Report of the Advisory Committee, and I think the Committee made a good job of its reference. Had the Bill gone to the vote in its original form on 3rd February I should have voted against it, whatever my hon. Friends on this side of the House might have done. I expressed my point of view quite definitely at the time, as I did in the Standing Committee a few days ago. It is a difficult problem to get this matter about right, but I think that the Advisory Committee has done so, and we should thank it for its work and accept its recommendations.
I have only one further thing to say. In principle, this earnings rule is a troublesome matter in the minds of many old-age pensioners and of the public at


large. Recently a spokesman on behalf of the National Federation of Old-Age Pensions Association declared himself against the retention of any earnings limit whatever. He wanted to sweep the whole thing away. I say with great emphasis that the retention of the earnings rule, which is an essential condition of the retirement principle, is also a condition of a claim to an adequate pension for those who retire. If we confuse the two things we shall get into an awful mess.
It is important, I think, that the old-age pensioners should recognise that this rule is not a vexatious thing to stop them earning a reasonable amount of money or to interfere in any way with all the reasonable requirements of their lives or desires. It is there because the claim for an adequate pension is conditional upon retirement, and the provision of an adequate pension on retirement is conditional on the State being willing to make an increasingly large contribution to the National Insurance Fund in order to provide it.
There is a mistaken impression that if one has paid pension contributions for many years one must necessarily have paid for the pension one gets. We know that that is not so, and as the years go by more and more money will have to be poured by the Exchequer into the National Insurance Fund in order to maintain the existing level of pensions at existing contributions. The amount will become greater still if the level of pensions increases and if the numbers of retirement pensioners grow, as they will.
I hope that these comments and other contributions to the debates on the Bill during its various stages will enable old-age pensioners—retirement pensioners is the proper term—and the public to understand what this earnings rule is about, and to regard it as an essential feature of the scheme as now constructed. If we had a scheme without such a rule and with no retirement conditions it would necessarily be a national scheme very different from the present one.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — SOLICITORS (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — Clause 1.—(INCREASE OF ANNUAL CON TRIBUTION TO COMPENSATION FUND.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

12.59 p.m.

Sir Lancelot Joynson-Hicks: If the Committee will bear with me for a few moments, I think it would be proper for me to say something about this Clause, because h is the most important Clause of the Bill. One factor which transpires on an occasion like this is how exceedingly necessary it is for the members of my profession to work professionally on Fridays. I have received apologies from numerous of my hon. Friends and from hon. Members opposite who are members of the profession, but who are unable to be present today. They have between them raised with me one or two points upon this Clause to which I think it would be proper for me to reply even in their absence.
In the first place, there is nothing exceedingly new about the provisions in Clause 1 which double the amount of the contribution at present levied on members of the profession in order to build up the Compensation Fund. They were discussed by the profession as long ago as last July. I do not think this a proper time to go into the principles of the Compensation Fund; possibly at a later stage that point could be elaborated. But last July the matter was first considered by the Law Society at its annual general meeting and subsequently It was considered again at the annual conference; so that the profession has had ample opportunity to consider both the necessity for, and the proposals contained in, this Clause.
As a result, and following correspondence initiated in The Times, ten letters were received and only eight were in opposition. The basis of the proposition primarily deals with two points. First, whether it is just and right that the contribution to the Compensation Fund


should be assessed upon a flat rate on every person in the profession who takes out a practising certificate. An alternative was suggested and was considered at some length in another place during the discussions on the Bill, which has already passed through the House of Lords. It was to try to arrange for a contribution based on the turnover of the solicitor's business. That would be an exceedingly complicated and difficult matter to assess.
The flat-rate system is much simpler, and one of the points which is of concern in the consideration of this matter is that regarding risk, and the majority of cases in which the Compensation Fund is called on—in fact, the vast majority—are of small firms with a small turnover. Therefore, so far as equity is concerned, it would look as though the flat-rate basis of contributions is at least as fair as the far more complicated system of a contribution based on turnover. In any event, when one takes into account that the contribution of a solicitor in private practice is a deductible expense for tax purposes, the argument is certainly one of de minimis.
The second point put up by colleagues in the profession is that contributions should extend only to those solicitors who are in private practice and not to those solicitors who are practising in employment. The argument for this—it has been mentioned to me by several colleagues—is that those who are in employment are not those handling clients moneys. Therefore, they are not exposed to the risk of dishonesty, with the consequent risk of the Compensation Fund being called upon as a result of their activities.
This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Law Society and by the profession at considerable length. Surely, the answer is that the Compensation Fund is not a form of individual insurance for a solicitor at all. It is collective insurance on the part of the profession as a whole. Its object primarily is to maintain the honour of the profession by guaranteeing that the profession, comprehensively and collectively, recognises 'its responsibilities towards any people who may suffer as a result of its members falling by the wayside.
For that reason it is considered that when a solicitor benefits in his capacity for earning his living by the necessity of having a practising certificate, and, therefore, he benefits from being a member of the profession, it is right and reasonable that he should be called on to contribute towards the Compensation Fund for the general honour of the profession.
On the question of the actual amount and the need for the increase which is contained in this Clause, the situation is simply that since the Compensation Fund was started it has never been possible to build up any reserve at all. It is felt that in case there were a calamity in case there were a greater run on the Fund—which we sincerely hope will not occur—than is envisaged at present, it is a proper and desirable thing that there should be a reserve built up. Once that has been built up, following on the increased rate of contribution contained in this Clause, it will be possible for the contribution called for to be reduced from the maximum named in the Clause, and to revert to what it is at present, or to some intermediate or lesser sum.
Finally, a point of criticism which has been raised is why should not there be a differential between the new practising solicitor, one who has just entered the profession and is starting to make his way, and one who is already well established? The answer is that there is exactly such a differential. Under the principal Act, amended by these proposals, the contribution towards the Compensation Fund is waived during the first three years of the solicitor's practice. He does not have to pay his contribution when he takes out his first three certificates. For the next three certificates his contribution is a moiety of the standard rate, and, therefore, it is not until he is entering his seventh year of practice that he is called upon to contribute the full standard rate provided by this Clause.
If there are any questions which any hon. Gentleman wishes to raise about the Clause, I shall be happy to try to answer them.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I wish to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks). The hon. Gentleman explained that this Compensation Fund was originally introduced for the honour of the profession, as a measure of


collective contribution to ensure that if any "black sheep" in the profession deliberately or otherwise caused a loss to a client, then this would be a fund out of which compensation could be paid.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, I think that all who have the honour of serving the community as solicitors realise that they have great responsibilities, not only to their clients, but to the community, and that a considerable measure of privilege is entrusted to them in the handling of the affairs of other parties; and it is their satisfaction to be able to record that the cases where there has been any loss are few and far between. One has, however, to recognise that they have occurred in the past. They may occur in future despite all the increasing safeguards taken by the Council of the Law Society in connection with admission to the profession.
Therefore, it is most desirable that this experiment, which was established a few years ago and has proved so successful, should be maintained on a basis which from the financial point of view is sound. The Law Society has devoted a great deal of thought to the subject. A great deal of time was devoted to the matter before the Bill was introduced. Objections which have been voiced in the Press to the proposal for an increase in the flat rate have been considered. I agree that the conditions are entirely in favour of the flat rate and of the increase proposed in the Clause. I very much hope that the Committee will take that view and that the Clause will be approved in the form suggested by the Law Society.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 4.—(ADMISSION OF PERSONS AS SOLICITORS.)

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, to leave out subsection (1).
This is a composite Bill which is in the nature of an omnibus Measure, and the Clauses are not precisely related to each other. Though I have put down this and other Amendments, it must not be

thought that I have any objection to the Bill as a whole. On the contrary, the Bill is one which in all its Clauses I cordially commend to the Committee. However, the subject is one of considerable importance and I am sure the Committee would agree that it would not be right or appropriate for it to be assumed that the details of the Clause had not received a good deal of attention from those both sides of the Committee who are interested.
The Amendment was put down to ventilate a point which, though perhaps not of any great immediate importance, seemed to me to raise a question of principle. The Master of the Rolls for many years past, it may be for centuries, has had a responsibility to supervise the activities of the profession. I think it is right to say that the Master of the Rolls has always had statutory duties about the admission of solicitors to the Rolls, with regard to matters of discipline and conduct while they are on the Rolls, and, I think, with regard to removal in certain cases.
1.15 p.m.
That system has worked extremely well. Successive Masters of the Roll—at any rate, within my recollection, which goes back to Lord Hanworth—have always taken a particular interest in the profession. This Clause provides that the Masters of the Rolls may in future delegate to a judge of the High Court the duty which hitherto has been special, personal and particular to him, of admitting solicitors
I ask myself whether that is necessary and desirable. Has the suggestion emanated from the present Master of the Rolls? What is its origin? Is it really necessary? Other things being equal, I should have preferred this subsection not to have remained in the Bill. I should have preferred to have seen nothing introduced which derogated from the particular responsibilities to the profession of the Master of the Rolls. I hope that the Amendment will be treated sympathetically.

Sir L. Joynson-Hicks: I appreciate the way in which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has moved the Amendment. I say straight away that the provision in subsection (1) is not of vital importance to the Bill or


in the profession. If the hon. Gentleman feels at the conclusion of our discussion that it is a matter which he should press, then I would not resist it to the ultimate degree, but I believe that when the Committee has heard the reason for the insertion of the provision it will be felt that it is desirable to include it in the Bill and that it would not be in the best interests to delete it.
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the relationship which we as a profession enjoy with the Master of the Rolls. Like him, I cannot go back into the period of antiquity when this relationship first started, but I do know that it has been in existence for a substantial time. The other day I happened by chance to come across the certificate of admission of my own father. It was dated 1885 and I thought that it had peculiar relevance to the Amendment. It was sealed, and the seal was attested by someone whose name I was unable to decipher; but, quite clearly, there appeared to be above the signature another signature which I thought was "Esther ill". On seeing that, I thought that there must have been a provision for an alternative signature, but on closer examination I saw that the word "ill" was actually "M.R.", so that my father had been clearly admitted by the Master of the Rolls in person.
It is that exact point with which the subsection is intended to deal. Even the Master of the Rolls is a busier man today than he was in the last century. The number and burden of the duties which have fallen upon him have increased substantially. Although the Master of the Rolls has not himself sought or initiated a step for the inclusion of this provision—and I should be misleading the Committee if I suggested such a thing—it is correct to say that he has been consulted about the provision and that he sees no objection to it.
First, may I make quite clear to the Committee exactly what, by this subsection, it is proposed the Master of the Rolls shall be relieved from doing? It is not any discretionary or executive object concerning the relations of the profession as a whole; it is simply and solely the signing of certificates of admission. It does not deal with the merits of people with admission certificates but is merely

the formal act of signing the admission certificates.
The reason for it is twofold. First, as actually happened in one case, the Master of the Rolls may be ill at the time when the admission certificates require his visa. A case arose when he was in hospital. There were two alternatives, either that the signing of the certificates should be delayed until his recovery—in which case the newly-admitted solicitors would be unable to initiate their practice because they had not got their certificates and would be disappointed after the conclusion of their period of articles and passing through examinations and might feel a certain sense of frustration.
The other alternative was that the Master of the Rolls might be interrupted in his sojourn in hospital to go through the business of signing certificates. So great was his feeling of responsibility towards the profession and so great was his sense of duty, that he insisted upon calling for the certificates—knowing that they would be ready for signature—in order that he should sign them.
I do not think that that is a burden which we, as members of the profession, would wish to lay upon any Master of the Rolls. It would not be inappropriate to call him the godfather of the profession. Our relationship with him is such that we regard and recognise what he does for the profession with the deepest sense of appreciation. The last thing we should want to do would be perhaps to add to his troubles when he is ill, or to add to his anxieties when—as happened in another case—the Master of the Rolls was abroad on his duties, in such a way as to cause him to feel that either his health was affected or his enjoyment of his duties was affected through the responsibility of having to perform this formal act.
That is the only reason we are seeking in this subsection to render it possible—that is all—for the Master of the Rolls to appoint a deputy and to delegate this duty of formal signing to that deputy.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I am very much reassured by what the hon. Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks) has said. He has convinced me that it would be right to leave this subsection in the Bill.
I have the greatest admiration for the present Master of the Rolls. One knows not only his prestige in presiding over the Court of Appeal, how conscientious and how zealous he is in attending to the manifold duties that are obligations on any Master of the Rolls, but, also, the extraneous duties which from time to time get thrust upon him. I know that he would not wish to delegate any duty of this kind, even a perfunctory duty, except in the case of real necessity. I am convinced that in such a case it is right that there should be statutory provision to enable him to do so. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 8.—(PROVISIONS RELATING TO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OR COURT.)

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out lines 4 to 6.
I attach considerable importance to this Amendment. The law provides that the Law Society, acting through a Disciplinary Committee, can exercise jurisdiction over solicitors. I think the system works very well. As far as I know it has the full approval of the profession and I think everybody is very indebted to the members of the Disciplinary Committee, which spends a great deal of time and thought on the responsible work it has to discharge.
Hitherto the quorum for a meeting of the Disciplinary Committee has been three. The Committee would probably agree that that is not an unreasonable provision. If any conduct of a solicitor has been such that it calls for investigation, perhaps leading to censure or, perhaps, even greater penalties on the part of the members of his profession, who, after all, are the best persons qualified to judge these matters, it is not unreasonable that a decision of that importance should require a panel of three solicitors. Of course, they are always experienced gentlemen of long standing in the profession.
The Clause seeks to provide that in future the quorum shall be reduced to two. That in itself is an abbreviation because the Clause provides that
unless any of the parties thereto objects, an application or complaint may be heard and determined by only two members of the committee—
Therefore, it might be argued, if any person were dissatisfied with a quorum of two, he could insist upon his case being tried by a quorum of three, but in practice that is not what happens. I understand that it often happens that the less serious cases are tried in the absence of the person against whom an application or complaint has been made. One knows that it sometimes happens that such a person gives an explanation in writing and may not actually be present at the time.
One also knows that from time to time accidents occur arising from the hazards of transport or some other reason, which result in there being difficulty in constituting a quorum of three. If the Clause remains in its present form one result may be that there might be occasion when a solicitor against whom complaint has been made thinks fit to send in his statement and explanation in writing, expecting it to be considered by a committee of three. One member might be absent, however, when the committee met. Under the Clause as I read it, the other two would be able to give themselves jurisdiction to hear the complaint because they would be entitled to say that no one had objected.

1.30 p.m.

Sir L. Joynson-Hicks: Surely it would scarcely be a question of their giving themselves jurisdiction. They would be given jurisdiction by Parliament.

Mr. Fletcher: I meant that Parliament would give them jurisdiction—that they would have, and would be able to exercise, jurisdiction.
Looking at the matter now purely from the point of view of the aggrieved person who might think himself innocent, or who has a good explanation and might have sent in a statement expecting it to be considered by three persons—and who might be content to rely upon the dispassionate judgment of three persons—I must say that this proposal seems to me to be undesirable. Is it entirely right that the person should, without notice,


find that there was a tribunal of two? I should have thought that prima facie that was not desirable, and that, other things being equal, it would have been much better to have preserved the quorum of three in such cases.

Sir L. Joynson-Hicks: This Amendment is, perhaps, of greater importance, if not of greater significance, to the profession than was the previous one moved by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher). The history of the Disciplinary Committee and its variations in size is relevant when judging what should be the quorum of that Committee.
The Disciplinary Committee was set up under the 1932 Act, which is the principal Act so far as this Amendment is concerned. Incidentally, when I referred in my original remarks to the principal Act, I was in error; I should have been referring to the 1941 Act. In the principal Act—that is to say, the 1932 Act—Section 4 provides for the setting up of a Disciplinary Committee which shall consist of not less than three or more than seven people, members of the Council or past members.
That was subsequently amended by the Act of 1939, which increased the maximum number from seven to nine. At the same time it gave power to the Society to divide the Disciplinary Committee, and it was provided that each division should act
…only while at least three members thereof are present. Each division shall appoint its own chairman.
We therefore get down to what, in effect, was a Disciplinary Committee of three persons, and the question is whether or not there are circumstances in which it is justifiable to reduce that quorum still further to two.
It may help the Committee if I offer a word of explanation as to why that provision is sought. It is true to say that even if the power exists, a committee of this sort—which has been appointed by the profession for a semi-judicial purpose to consider professional errors and misconduct amongst its own members—is not likely to behave irresponsibly or without due regard to professional etiquette as well as to the professional observance of proper relationships between those of the profession who come before it and its own

position vis-à-vis the Council. Therefore, in all ordinary cases, there is no doubt that the quoroum of three would be used.
In quite a number of cases, however, there is no doubt at all as to the error and the guilt of the party who is before the Disciplinary Committee. There are cases in which a conviction has been obtained against the person concerned, or cases in which he has written to the Disciplinary Committee to say that he is frightfully sorry but it was a matter of inadvertence and hopes that the Committee will take this, that and the other into consideration, and that he, himself, does not propose to come to London in order to argue the matter before the Committee.
It is in those cases that it has happened in the past that, for one reason or another, a 100 per cent. quorum has not been present, sometimes on account of the weather, sometimes on account of illness. Where the panel of the Disciplinary Committee consists of three persons and all three have to be present, it does appear to be a hardship, both on those who are waiting for their cases to be taken and on those, both solicitors and officials, who are present if, owing to some such accident as I have indicated, the Committee is unable to sit and the cases cannot be heard. This power has been inserted in the Bill, therefore, to enable such difficulties to be overcome in cases in which the person who is appearing before the Disciplinary Committee does not object.
The hon. Member has represented the difficulty of a man objecting, but I do not appreciate that difficulty at all. In the first place, if he is appearing before the Disciplinary Committee in person and is prepared to argue his case in person, he is not likely to have any difficulty in objecting if it is suggested that, owing to the absence of one member of the Committee, his case should be proceeded with before the other two. I do not really see any practical difficulty there.
As regards the other point, that of the absent solicitor who is considered, in effect, to have consented because he has not objected—well, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that we have an old adage, not only in the law but outside it, about ignorance of the law being no excuse. That applies particularly to members of


the profession. If they are brought before the Disciplinary Committee and do not take the trouble to ascertain what are the provisions concerning their appearance before the Committee and to verify that, if necessary, their case will be considered by two members instead of by three, it really cannot be held that they are subjected to any hardship whatsoever if they do not object. I cannot see the force of that argument.
For those reasons I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment. It is something which I do not think can foreseeably produce any hardship whatsoever. On the other hand, it may be beneficial—as it would have been beneficial in various cases in the past, had the power been available—to the erring member of the profession, to those who give up their time voluntarily to sit on the Disciplinary Committee and to the officers who serve it, and will generally give some easement through the Committee not being always compelled to have a quorum of three.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I have been listening with respect and, I was going to say, almost with reverence to this discussion, but I am sorry to tell the hon. Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks) that I find his reasons a trifle unconvincing. The Disciplinary Committee is a statutory committee that was set up 24 years ago with a minimum quorum of three. It always has had a minimum quorum of three, and now it is sought to reduce that quorum to two unless any one of the parties objects.
One has to remember, first, that the profession has, as its members would be the first to recognise, a very peculiar and important public responsibility, and it is for that reason that Parliament has in successive Solicitors Acts laid down in some detail matters which perhaps in other professions it would not have thought necessary.
This Disciplinary Committee has the most serious responsibility that can be imposed on any professional committee. It can in effect, subject to the provisions of the Solicitors Acts, break a man in his professional life. Equally, it has to deal with complaints from citizens, the clients of the profession, and, serious though any individual complaint may be, the Disciplinary Committee has the general

responsibility of maintaining the name and standing of the profession in the public life of the country.
It is suggested that in certain circumstances it would be sufficient if two people exercised those duties. Perhaps I ought more accurately to say "exercised those duties in the first place." I recognise that there are certain controls and limitations. But I am certain that the hon. Member for Chichester would not for a moment disagree with me as to the seriousness, in many cases, at any rate, of the duties of this Committee and its extreme importance not only because of its functions but because of its general relation to the public.
I was puzzled by one or two observations of the hon. Member for Chichester. He seemed to suggest at one point that arrangements might be made beforehand for a committee of two to deal with certain pending cases. Of course, if that is done, any difficulties in the train service or any questions of illness, and so forth, will have exactly the same effect in the case of a committee of two as obtains at present with a committee of three. Therefore, there cannot be much in that suggestion. I think it is irrelevant, because if arrangements are made beforehand for two, exactly the same trouble may occur in the one case as in the other.

Sir L. Joynson-Hicks: I agree entirely. If I gave the impression that it was intended to use this provision in order to arrange for a quorum of two, I was quite in error. I did not intend to give any such impression. I agree that if that were the case, the difficulty in the event of an emergency would arise straightaway.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: If the intention is to provide for a quorum of three, the only object of this Clause appears to be to deal with cases where one of the gentlemen in question fails to turn up. But they have gone on like this for 24 years during which, on the whole, means of locomotion and the state of public health have become a little more generally available and a little better than they used to be.
I cannot see any urgent need for this provision. If it is found that the proceedings of the Committee are frequently held up because a quorum of three does not appear, they might perhaps follow the


practice that is usual with juries and provide for a supplementary gentleman to appear at short notice.
Frankly, I feel that the profession in a matter of this sort is taking things a little too easily. There are the most serious objections to this proposal, I should have thought, in any case that really involved grave matters in so small a Committee. I do not know what is to happen if the two gentlemen disagree. There may be an answer—I dare say there is—but it is not satisfactory to the parties in the case to have a decision depend on some rule of procedure or question of seniority as between two members. For a Committee with such serious responsibilities as this to provide for a quorum of two simply because after 24 years it is now discovered that a quorum of three cannot always be there and something must be done about it, is insufficient.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider what has been put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and, indeed, what I have said myself, and perhaps feel that it is not too much of a concession to the public interest in this case to maintain the existing quorum of three and not press this point.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I very much hope, in view of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has said, that the hon. Member will meet us on this point. We are anxious on both sides of the Committee to get through the Bill with the minimum of controversy. This seems to us to be a reasonable Amendment and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it.

Mr. Barnett Janner: May I add one plea? I apologise for having come into the Chamber late, but I have been discussing this matter with one of my hon. Friends. Some of us know how important this matter is to some members of the profession, and it is essential that they should be given a chance of realising that their case has been dealt with in as ample and full a manner as possible. I am sure that it will be the desire also of solicitors that this opportunity should be given. I think that a quorum of two is very small. Three is not too many, but it is certainly much better than two.

Sir L. Joynson-Hicks: The hon. Gentleman puts me in a predicament in this matter, because I cannot accept all the arguments which have been put forward. There are considerable practical difficulties in the suggestion about having a spare in reserve to sit in the Disciplinary Committee should it be necessary. One cannot go into court, so to speak, to sit on the Disciplinary Committee or divisions of it unless one has studied at considerable length the great detail of the cases which are to come before one. There has to be at least 48 hours' warning, as I know from experience, to give people a chance to get to know the background of the business to be considered. The object of the Clause is to deal with the emergency of which there is no warning. That is the difficulty in accepting that proposal.
While I recognise the weight of the argument, I notice the curious thing that the problem presented here today was not presented in this or any other form during the debates in another place. Had there been real weight in the argument, I should have thought that the exceedingly learned noble lords who participated in the debates on the Bill in another place would at least have thought of the point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not saying that is a good reason for our not accepting this Amendment, but the matter was not raised there, and I am considering what weight should be attached to it. I do not think, on the strength of such arguments as have been adduced, I can accept the Amendment, but I shall certainly not carry the matter to a Division.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 12.—(POWER OF SOCIETY TO DISCHARGE ARTICLES IN CERTAIN CASES.)

Mr. E. Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out lines 20 to 24.
I tabled this Amendment because I thought it ought to be discussed before approving a proposal which gives the Council of the Law Society a rather startling new power. I do not propose to


dwell on it at any length, because I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) has something to say about it. However, it is quite novel, for the suggestion in the Clause is that in future, after an articled clerk has entered into articles with his principal, has, perhaps, passed his intermediate examination and is, perhaps, preparing for his final examination, the Council of the Law Society should then be able, in the words of the Clause, "of their own motion" to intervene and discharge the articles on the ground that the clerk is "morally unfit" to become an officer of the Supreme Court.
The first comment that occurs to one is that it is an interference with a contract made between two parties. The principal who accepts the responsibility of training the articled clerk, of looking after him generally, guiding him, assisting him, not only with his legal studies but in his general character and demeanour and preparation for the profession, has the duty to consider the whole character of the articled clerk, and, in appropriate cases, to take the necessary action. Why, therefore, one asks oneself, should a third party, should the Council of the Law Society, be able to intervene and, if it comes to the conclusion that the clerk is morally unfit, be able to discharge the articles?
The second question, which, in a sense, I think, is even graver, is this. What is meant by moral unfitness? These are very wide words. I think the Committee will want to know what are the kinds of grounds on which the Council of the Law Society would want to intervene while an articled clerk is under articles and say, "You are so morally unfit to be a solicitor that your articles must now be discharged." After all, it would be a very serious thing to say to anybody.
A person who has passed his examination and is qualified and has been admitted cannot, as far as I know, be struck off on the ground of moral unfitness. The hon. Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks), who is sponsoring the Bill, ought to be complimented on the admirable way he is discharging the function of piloting the Bill through the Committee, but I would say to him that, as far as I understand the position, a solicitor cannot be struck off the roll on the ground of moral unfitness. There may

be various misdemeanours he may commit which, if proved against him, may justify his being struck off, but the words "moral unfitness" are a very vague, very wide and very ill-defined term.
Moreover, there is no appeal against the action of the Council. The provision in this paragraph (e) is not like that relating to the Disciplinary Committee which we were considering a moment ago. There is provision for appeal in that case. Here there is, as I understand this new, startling provision, an unfettered power in the Council to say that in its opinion a young man is morally unfit, and that that puts an end to his articles. This, I think, is asking the Committee to accept too much.

Mr. Janner: I support the contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) in this matter. I suppose that if one were to ask whether the words "morally unfit" should be utilised in this sense, then, at first glance, possibly people would say that a man must be morally fit in order to be an officer of the Supreme Court. However, it is not quite as simple as that, because before a man or woman enters into articles nowadays there is a very close investigation into the character and ability and suitability of the individual concerned; so that nowadays, although this has come about in quite recent times, before a person can take up articles with a solicitor, he must pass a very severe test of his character and of his general fitness ultimately to be an officer of the Supreme Court.
2.0 p.m.
When that has been done, when the principal of a firm or the person to whom the individual is articled has had him under supervision for any length of time, he is in a position to gauge much more accurately than anybody else whether that individual is fit to be an officer of the Supreme Court. Indeed, though I do not remember the exact terms of the declaration, he has to sign or enter into a declaration whereby he declares that the articled clerk is a person who has fulfilled his obligations under his articles, and these are pretty steep provisions. The articles themselves contain clauses which demand that the articled clerk shall be a fit and proper person and do the appropriate things during the course of his articles. If the principal were satisfied that there


was a very grave moral aberration on the part of the articled clerk, he would not make the declaration that is required.
My hon. Friend is, I believe, right in saying that it is not right to leave an arbitrary decision to this Council. Indeed, I doubt whether the Law Society would want it, without a right of appeal even to anybody, including themselves, because this is a difficult term to interpret. The law itself does not claim to be a code of morals, and now the Law Society is to set up a new type of code, in which I suppose it will have to interpret, within its own four walls, what is meant by the term used in this Clause.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will, on reflection, agree that we cannot leave the Clause in this indefinite form. What exactly does it mean? Does the hon. Gentleman mean that, if a person had committed a domestic offence for which he is not charged in a court at all, that might make that individual an unsatisfactory person to conduct the business of a solicitor? Let me put it this way. Might it not be said—or even will it be said—if the articled clerk has committed a matrimonial offence, and if he becomes an officer of the Supreme Court, it would not be safe to have a client visit him? That may very well be said, though I do not know how far this can be taken, but I think that if this provision is to be made, there should be a right of appeal for the individual concerned.
I hope that, in the light of these considerations, the hon. Gentleman opposite will take instructions, if he has to do so, or if not, that he is perhaps himself now persuaded that it is not quite fair, putting it very mildly, to leave the fate of an individual who has passed all his examinations, paid his premium and everything else without any right of appeal at all. I am not passing any reflection on the Council of the Law Society or the people who are likely to judge this matter, because, after all, they are human beings, and it will be for them to decide what these terms actually mean. There is nobody to whom they can go to tell them that they are wrong. I think it is important that we should give this right of appeal to the individual concerned, because his whole future may be destroyed, since once he has become articled he would not 'be able to go into any other branch of the law.
There is another great difficulty here. I do not know whether under the new rules the individual concerned would be entitled to take such a clerk into a solicitor's office. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell me. If the Council of the Law Society decides that he is not a fit and proper person, in consequence of this moral aberration or whatever it may be, to become a solicitor, will he be in the same position, for example, as a solicitor who has committed an offence and has been struck off the rolls or suspended, because we know that he is not entitled, without special leave, even to become a clerk in a solicitor's office?
Therefore, this goes very far, and it does not merely mean that a person might be entirely deprived of the possibility of carrying on that profession, but might even extend to his being deprived of earning a livelihood in any capacity at all in a solicitor's office. It might very well, and probably will, mean that a person who went straight into his articles after leaving school would have no possibility of doing any other kind of work at all. This is not a trivial matter which we are considering, but one of a substantial nature, and we should reflect very carefully before coming to a decision to accept the Clause as it stands. I therefore appeal to the hon. Gentleman to reflect on it again, and to assure us that, if he is in any doubt about the matter, he will be prepared to consider it at a later stage.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): Before my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks) replies to these points, not being the sole lion in the den of Daniels in the House, I wonder whether I might contribute some reflections which I hope are helpful.
The Committee has already voted Clause 2 into the Bill, and under the provisions of that Clause, before anybody can be admitted a solicitor, he will have to satisfy the Law Society of his moral fitness.

Mr. Janner: As a learned Law Officer of the Crown, with a very clear mind on this subject, can the Solicitor-General say what necessity there is for this additional precaution, if what he is now saying is correct? If that is the case, there is no


need for the subsection to which we are referring.

The Solicitor-General: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a submission about that, although this is a domestic matter to the other branch of the profession and I do not wish to intrude. As the hon. Gentleman used the phrase, may I say that part of the iron curtain which a person has to penetrate before he can be admitted is to satisfy the Law Society of his "moral fitness". Complaint has been made about this new test—I think it was called "moral unfitness"—because the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), who is not now in the Chamber, probably forgot that it was not quite right to call it new. The principal Act, which is referred to, uses these very words "moral unfitness", as the test in Section 14.
I think that the hon. Member for Islington, East, was perhaps forgetting that in the days, not very long ago, when he took his own final examination, a peril then hung over his head, because if, under the principal Measure, the Solicitors Act, 1932, an allegation had been made by the Registrar against his moral fitness to be an officer of the Supreme Court, an inquiry into that allegation would have been added, as it were, to his final examination. He would have had to survive that test just as he would have had to know things about trust accounts, and whatever else solicitors have to know.
This is really not a new horror, and no one would doubt that so honourable and responsible a profession as that of solicitors—and it is easier for me to say these things than for some hon. Members who belong to it—would think it highly undesirable that people who were morally unfit should be admitted into the profession.
What follows? I should have thought, as a layman, that it was kinder to let the chap know at the earliest possible stage of his budding career that such is the fact. If he is a person who, by reason of moral unfitness, will not be admitted ultimately, it is just as well to let him know at the earliest possible stage. This provision in the Bill would make it possible to tell him at any stage of his articles—perhaps when he had done two of his five years and not more

—" No, do not go on, because you are not going to be admitted: since you will not be able ultimately to satisfy the requirements of Clause 2."
I should have thought that in the appropriate case, and no doubt it would be extremely rare, it would be much kinder to the young man not to waste his time and money but to take power to tell him at the earliest possible stage if need be. No one thinks that the Law Society will act irrationally or hurriedly about this. It would be a power to enable the Society to be kind by letting a man know at an earlier stage than that at which he seeks admission.

Sir L. Joynson-Hicks: My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has replied to the arguments in favour of the Amendment. Little remains for me except to congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) upon having declared and established their professional innocence before the Committee, and shown that over a quarter of a century they have been carrying on their business as professional solicitors without being aware of any perils which they might in cure through committing moral turpitude. The expression here, which I will certainly not try to define. is one which is hallowed in the profession, having been contained in the Solicitors Act, 1932, and again referred to in the series of subsequent acts for various purposes.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has said, the object of the Clause is exceedingly narrow. The Law Society already has the duty laid upon it by Statute of exercising the discretion of discharging the articles of an articled clerk in circumstances of moral unfitness, upon the application, it may be, of the solicitor to whom he is a clerk. That obviously may well give rise to difficulties of personal relationships when so frequently the profession is very largely carried on from father to son. When there is a family tradition it would clearly give rise to difficulties in making an application.
What is here done is to enable the Society in these cases, as it is enabled to do in certain other matters, to act upon its own motion and take the initiative. If it is evident to the Society


—and I regret to say that there are several cases a year—that an articled clerk has established his moral unfitness to become an officer of the Supreme Court, what is the point of the Society doing only what they have the power to do now, namely, letting him working out his period of articles, it may be for another four years, and then preventing his taking his final examinations? Surely it is far better for the Society to say, "We are afraid that you are not going to be able to qualify even if you complete your articles."
The four years, otherwise, will be completely wasted. The young man is most unlikely to be in receipt of any income. He is seeking to learn his trade and may have paid, or have had paid on his behalf, a substantial premium for his apprenticeship. Under this provision the Society also has powers to deal with such matters as the return of premiums.
As to the question whether such an articled clerk would be in the same position as a solicitor who had been struck off or suspended, the answer is "No." The same detriments do not attach to the articled clerk. I would ask the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West to examine the provision in the first paragraph of the First Schedule, much of which repeats Section 51 of the Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1956, in more simplified and concise form. The hon. Member will see that this is a practical extension of the powers already vested in the Society by statutory provision. It is a provision introduced for the benefit of the clerk and to assist the general machinery for the operation of the articles system in the profession.

Mr. Mitchison: This has been a fascinating discussion. I gather that moral unfitness is very frequent, but only in statutes, and I feel some doubt whether in every case the same standards would necessarily apply. I should dearly have loved a short history of past cases, for the unruly apprentice is a rather attractive figure, even though when we are being more serious we think that something has to be done about him. I am sure that if my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) had been in the Chamber, he would have sought leave to withdraw the Amend-

ment. I understand that there are procedural difficulties caused by his absence, but I assure the Committee that they are no more than procedural.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 13 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

2.20 p.m.

Sir L. Joynson-Hicks: As the House knows, there was no opportunity for anything other than a purely formal Second Reading of this Bill, and it would be a pity if we parted from it without a few general observations upon its content, especially as it is a Bill of some importance. Although it is not the consolidation Measure for which the profession is longing, nevertheless it covers a wide field and it has received considerable attention, both in the profession and in another place through which it has passed already.
Admittedly, there is much in the Bill which is administrative and technical. I do not propose to refer to its details, particularly those Clauses which have been discussed at some length. I know that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) will agree that we of the profession are grateful to those who, though not of our branch of it, have commended the Bill in another place. I am thinking particularly of the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and Lord Cohen, who moved its Second Reading. They have helped the profession materially in seeking to set its business on still surer foundations and to enable it to retain still further the respect of the general public.
That is the main purpose of Clause 1, to which I referred a short while ago as being the most important Clause in the Bill. Several of the other Clauses are also useful, as well as being of a tidying character. It is curious that for upwards of 100 years the Law Society has carried on the functions of the Registrar of


Societies because it is appointed so to do by the Master of the Rolls. In theory, at any rate, at any moment the Master of the Rolls may appoint someone else to be the Registrar, and it has always been felt that this would lead to considerable difficulties if it took place. Consequently, by Clause 3 the Society is required to perform the functions of the Registrar, and so blend more nearly together the work of the Registrar and the Society which, in itself, will be an exceedingly helpful step to take in preparation for a general consolidation Measure.
The Bill also helps colonial solicitors who desire to have the right to practise in this country, and that is a step which we in this House will commend wholeheartedly, and which will also tend to improve the relationship and to increase the connection between the Colonial Empire and the home country.
Turning to Clause 1 for a moment, I believe that we are the only profession which, through the statutory provision of the Compensation Fund, together says to the outside world that as a profession we will recognise and be responsible for any losses caused to the outside world through the dishonesty of one of our members, or of his clerk acting in the course of his professional duties, or in connection with any trust which he is looking after professionally.
This is a substantial burden. I think the House will agree that we are not a profession of dishonest people and that we have few black sheep, but there is no profession which does not suffer from some. However, I believe we are the only one which seeks to protect the public from problems caused in that way. So the real purpose of Clause 1 is to enable the profession to increase the amount which it collects towards the compensation fund, so as to build up a reserve, and thereby enhance the assurance which it will give to the public of being able to offer such compensation as may be necessary if and when required.
The primary object of this Bill is, therefore, both to maintain the honour of the profession and to enhance the confidence which it holds in the esteem of the public.

2.27 p.m.

Mr. Janner: I shall refer only briefly to the points made so aptly by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks). Every measure taken to establish the fact that the solicitor's profession regards itself as anxious to protect in every sense any individual wronged by a member of the profession, is welcomed by the profession itself.
As you know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in spite of the bricks which are occasionally hurled against us in common with our friends in the other branch of the profession, in this country both professions stand high in the public esteem, and they are highly respected throughout the world. Indeed, they are as much respected as any practising body anywhere in the world.
It is true that in a profession which is entrusted with so much important and valuable information and work, and which has heavy funds placed at its disposal by its clients, there must be some people who abuse the trust placed in them, albeit they are a very small proportion. It is not generally known in the country how large are the funds which pass automatically through the hands of the profession. It is taken for granted that a solicitor will hold very large funds in the aggregate without being paid anything for holding them.
It may be said that he is paid for his work, but in most cases if an individual or a company is entrusted with funds, remuneration is paid in consequence of the trust reposed in the individual or the company. Quite rightly, that side of a solicitor's duty is taken for granted, with the consequence that people entrust practically their lives—that is what it amounts to—to solicitors.
If this were understood in its fullest extent, I think that the community as a whole would realise how few are the solicitors who fall by the way. I know the Law Society will agree that every precaution should be taken not only to prevent that kind of thing from happening but, in the event of a wrongful act on the part of a member of the profession, to see that no one suffers as a consequence.
We are grateful to the Law Society for having taken the step of promoting the Bill. The points which my hon. Friend


the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher and I raised in Committee were raised with a view to protecting individuals in case there might be the slightest danger of anyone suffering. I know that the Law Society will take into consideration what we said. We know very well that a dissatisfied client or a witness who has been cross-examined is sometimes vicious about the matter and regards it as a personal affair on the part of the solicitor or clerk. Such a person might easily act as an informer without there being the slightest foundation for the accusation.
We are anxious, as I am sure is the hon. Member for Chichester, that this Bill should not open the way to informers to make the life of an articled clerk uncomfortable or to place him from time to time in a position of anxiety. That is what we had in mind in Committee, but by and large the profession as a whole, and certainly hon. Members on both sides of the House, will regard this as a very useful Measure. I have very much pleasure in supporting it.

2.33 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: As another Daniel surrounded by lions, I should like to say that all my hon. Friends appreciate the

utility of this Measure. We should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks). I feel sure that his profession could not have found a more distinguished, more courteous and more eloquent advocate for what it desired to put forward.

2.34 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: It is known that the Government welcome the Bill. I should like to congratulate the Law Society on getting so fine a champion as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Sir L. Joynson-Hicks) to conduct it in so agreeable a manner here.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an Amendment.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present:

House counted, and, 40 Members not being present, adjourned at twenty-three minutes to Three o'clock till Monday next.